Ellen's idea is an excellent one. I think it would behoove us all to pay attention. This project, after all, does belong to the volunteers. Ginger gingerh@shawneelink.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Powell Jr <jpowelljr@gru.net> To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Sunday, April 16, 2000 8:01 AM Subject: [BOARD-L] [Fwd: Response, and Proposal] >This is forwarded by request. > >Jim Powell Jr > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Response, and Proposal >Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 07:39:16 -0500 >From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> >To: jpowelljr@gru.net,pettit@Adobe.COM >CC: USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com,USGenWeb-SE-L@rootsweb.com > >TO: Jim Powell and Teri Pettit, SE/MA County Coordinator >Representatives > > >As my SE/MA representatives, I am submitting this note in hopes that >either >or both will consider forwarding it to the Board-L. I would ask that, >if >submitted, the note be posted in it's entirety. > >If you should decide against forwarding the note to the AB, please let >me >know at your earliest convenience so that I may make other arrangements. > >Thank you for your consideration. > >Ellen Pack >------------- > >To the USGW Advisory Board Members - > > >1) It has been brought to my attention that AB Member Pam Reid, a few >days >ago, posted the following remark on the Board-L: > > "The ONLY reason that there is Census Special Project in the bylaws > is because Kay fought her way onto to Board and the committee and > made sure it was worded that way." > >If the above is not an accurate representation of Pam's original >remarks, I >wish to be notified immediately, and would suggest that you skip to item >2. > >Otherwise, I must take exception to the remark, as it is an insult not >only >to me personally, a member of said By-Laws Committee, but, in my >opinion, >to every committee member, all of whom have my greatest respect. > >I can assure anyone interested that NO one "made sure" that I agreed or >disagreed with anything. I am perfectly capable of free thought, and, >in >fact, well known for expressing those thoughts, and acting upon them >when >deemed necessary. > >For the record, my personal reason for preferring to itemize the SPs, >and >in the wording adopted, was to avoid the possibility of one person >wielding >enormous power and control over such a large and ever-expanding >collection >of material. I still firmly believe in that concept, though it has yet >to >come to pass. > >I am not aware of anyone on the By-Laws committee who served as a puppet >subject to Kay Mason's bidding, or to anyone's bidding. Certainly, I >was >not, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. > > >2) The Census/Archives dispute is a shameless mess which seriously >undermines the entire project, and it's credibility. Unfortunately, in >spite of valiant and honest attempts by a few, the situation is worse >today >than when it began. > >Due to entrenched lines in the sand, and preconceived ideas and personal >alliances, the SPs and the AB as a whole have made absolutely no >headway. There is not one shred of evidence that any meaningful >break-through is even possible, given the current climate. The people >who >COULD make a difference appear to be incapable of rising to the >occasion, >impartially considering valid points on both sides, following strongly >worded AB recommendations, or of placing the well-being of the project >ahead of personal considerations. > >I submit that there is only one way this horrendous problem will be >solved, >and that is by removing the decision from the involved parties, >including >the AB, and turning it over to the general membership. > >This is, after all, OUR project, notwithstanding any personal claims of >ownership or authority. > >To that end, I would strongly suggest the appointment of a special >committee comprised of at-large USGW members. Those members should not >be >or have been in any position of USGW authority, i.e. SC's, ASCs, Board >Reps, etc. They should never have been involved in any aspect of any >Archives and/or Census projects, and should not hold known pre-conceived >opinions of the current situation, or maintain personal associations >with >Archive/Census members or Board reps. > >One or two volunteer members (depending on desired size of the >committee) >should be selected from each region, as nominated by the appropriate >SCs. Their appointment should be based on the above criteria, and on >previous or current "real world" organizational and leadership >experience. Appointments should be subject to the approval of other >Reps >(who must show good cause to challenge an appointment), to ensure, as >much >as possible, an autonomous and non-biased committee makeup. > >Are there such people out there? You bet! More than enough to calmly, >intelligently, and reasonably settle this issue in a way that will best >serve the USGW Project, volunteers, submitters, and researchers >alike. I'll put my money on the CCs any day. > >This committee would be charged with rebuilding/restructuring the SPs to >include determining the goal(s) of the entire Archives arm of USGW (CP >included of course), the inner hierarchy, method of leadership >assignment, >administration of individual SPs, data storage, and the means that data, >and the integrity of the SPs, can be best protected, as well as policy >re >submitters and their copyrighted data. The issue of >duplication/non-duplication of material should also be addressed, as >well >as autonomy/non-autonomy of each SP. An impartial non-USGW-affiliated >RW >member should be available to answer technical questions when necessary. > >The committee findings should then be submitted to the AB in the form of >a >By-Laws Amendment, and (sans ANY alterations by the AB) voted upon by >the >general membership. > >The proposed amendment could be legally (what a novel idea!) placed on a >ballot and voted upon under: > >ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS > >Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well-being of >The >USGenWeb > Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and >disseminate it to the > membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, >the >proposed > amendment shall be posted to the national website and >disseminated to the > membership within two (2) business days. The proposed >amendment >shall remain > posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special >ballot >shall be prepared > and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A >two-thirds (2/3) majority, of > The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time >frame, >shall be required > for the amendment to pass. > >If the AB considers the best interests of the project and constituents, >if >it can rally to the cause, exercise true leadership, and refrain from >squabbling over mindless points of order, ad nauseam, the process could >begin quickly, and a committee seated and operational by mid-May. > >Immediately upon selecting the so-called Special Project Committee, or >even >before, the AB should seat an Elections Committee. It's nearing time >to >form an Elections Committee, anyway. > >If passed, and current SP volunteers and administrators can agree to >abide >by the new and/or changed structure and administration, great. If not, >turn in your resignation. This pathetic and destructive war must come >to >an end, one way or the other. > >I urge all AB members to seriously consider the merits of the above >recommendation. We must go back to the drawing board so that we may >restart with a clean slate, effectively putting this project back in >working order. In my opinion, this is the only chance we have, and I >challenge the AB to act in a positive, non-partisan fashion on what it >claims to be a sincere desire to end this madness and reunite the >feuding >elements of the USGW Project. > > >Respectfully, > >Ellen Pack >Adams Co, MS CC >Wilkinson Co, MS CC >SW MS Territory CC >Green Co, TN ACC >